If Obama Imposes the U.N. Gun Ban On America, Which Would Dissolve Our Bill Of Rights And Orders Gun Confiscation What Will You Do?

The new United Nations Treaty is being designed to disarm citizens of each nation that signs. The treaty will give all governments a free hand to do as they please. It is making headway in Washington D.C. and it is feared that President Obama may very well try to use the treaty to consolidate his power in America. The treaty specifics are now being negotiated and Obama has given the OK For the U.S. to be a part of the negotiations.

As of June 2010 Obama supports the soon to be written treaty, which would end our Bill of Rights and destroy the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has been the crucial amendment that is there to guard against tyranny.

The issues that divide us, political, moral and theological, whether or not we “spread the wealth and pursue a socialist agenda or whether we adhere to our original founding as a free republic has us hurtling towards another American civil war. Do we change our entire way of life, the base of our economy and restructure our political landscape?

Free Republic or Slave Socialist? The Federal Usurpation is being pushed too far for some of us to stand. Do we abandon our noble experiment based upon the powerful force of personal liberty and freedom, the principles for which our Republic once stood? Are they misguided? Are they evil? The leftists, of course, believe they have a more spiritual and humane path, wanting (so they say) all Americans to share equally in the wealth, where progressivism can become the only true freedom.

Should we conserve the ideals of a Republic, a Representative Republic, envisioned by the founders of these United States? Do our social and religious beliefs, established mores, our basic economic freedoms, induce enough passion to fight ... and will both sides claim an absolute, moral imperative that each consider unimpeachable and the most righteous cause? This is the stuff of civil wars.

Is the left going to insist theirs is an urgent mission that cannot be put off any longer and continue the cry for social justice, forcing America into the complete and final solution, in which they so fervently believe?

I hope this will nothing but a clash between opposing forces of voters, but it seems too explosive. It is too deep a disagreement, too fundamentally rooted in our respective beliefs in a way of life to which we each are totally committed, Republic or Socialist. We know they can not exist peacefully. There is no history to suggest it.

This is not simply socialist creep, a push from a small number of radicals; it is the rush of the left, abetted by many around the world, to finally end our grand experiment.
Will the resistance to this virulent, leftist imposition of will end in a heated debate and resolution through the ballot box, or will it create a resurgent Free Republic, the mounting of a resistance that forces some of us to become rebels?

8
posted on 07/20/2010 7:46:56 AM PDT
by jessduntno
("Conservatism is the antidote to tyranny...its principles are the founding principles." - LevinHey,)

Barry can sign this thing if he wants but it will never be ratified by the Senate so it will be another waste of time

Not so sure anymore. When few actually read the bills they sign anything could happen. They’ll sneak anything through by whatever methods are available. We no longer have a government for the people. Sad.

Ive never owned a gun in my life, but if this was clearly being attempted I would buy many.

You might want to buy at least one now to beat the rush and be prepared. The worsening economy itself is reason enough to consider a gun for personal protection.

And gun sales need to go through the roof regardless, in order to serves as a deterrent against this kind of thing. If every law-abiding citizen had a gun, the Marxists would realize that any gun ban would be no more than masturbatory futility.

18
posted on 07/20/2010 8:16:18 AM PDT
by TheThinker
(Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenerio at a time.)

"We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

.....

. . . ,all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nice try though.

25
posted on 07/20/2010 8:32:20 AM PDT
by Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)

"We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

.....

. . . ,all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nice try though.

31
posted on 07/20/2010 8:41:35 AM PDT
by Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the section you underlined in Article 6 of the Constitution does not pertain to legally ratified treaties being overruled by the Constitution, but to the supremacy of the Constitution itself. You replaced the semi-colon with a comma. The semi-colon ';' separates different sections of the paragraph concerning Supremacy of the Constitution. Below is the entire Supremacy paragraph in Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Also, I recall a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that once a treaty is legally entered into and ratified, that it becomes the law of the land and supercedes previous laws, including the Constitution. I can't recall the case, but I believe that the Supremes did say a treaty does overrule the Constitution. I may be wrong, but I do recall reading about this a few years ago.

I do hope you are right, Vendome, and that I am wrong, but my memory says the Supremes did rule recently that legally ratified treaties do supercede U.S. Law.

34
posted on 07/20/2010 9:01:12 AM PDT
by AmericaOne
(Sneaking In is NOT Immigration!!!)

Whatever Grammar Nazi. It is called an “excerpted quote”, hence I did not give it a “full quote”, “paraphrase” or even summarize.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, last night, so I am confident using and excerpted quote is completely acceptable.

Besides you put the semi-colon in the wrong place as you did not call out the words before and after where it should exist.

And no, The Supreme Court never ruled the Constitution can abrogated or marginalized by treaty.

You may be worshiping at the alter of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has a penchant and love of international law and wants to achieve some sort of uniformity above or in exception of The U.S. Constitution. However, she and you will not achieve your vaunted dream without at least three more justices on your side, who will rule in favor of international law.

Not going to happen.

I still stand by my original summary.

No treaty can abrogate the Supreme law of the land, in which all executive, judges, senators, etc must abide by and any treaty entered into must achieve a majority and affirmative vote of no less than 2/3rds the Senate.

That isn’t going to happen either.

37
posted on 07/20/2010 9:21:09 AM PDT
by Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)

Somebody mentioned LISTS?!?! Military veterans, firefighters, emergency service technicians, V.A. patients, law enforcement, are all ALREADY “identified” by the federal government!

Should this bastard-in-charge kneel and curtsy to the U.N.’s gun laws, I’m putting on war paint, buying my urn on E-bay, and making sure that “little play things” are all nice and clean, and well-fed. There is a “No surrender” in Arabic picture I have saved as a JPG file, should somebody wish it for themselves, free. I swore an oath as a military member to protect and defend the Constitution. Any questions?

Start NOW!! I have not owned any, in over a 25 year span of time, but because of the upswing of things, I have attended CCW classes (I’m silent on the rest of that), and have found a few ‘good ones’ at a fair price.

If you are not one for a handgun, (no points taken for that), try this ... the good ol’ cowboy lever-action rifle, many styles, many choices. It will do as advertised, as it has since 1892!

I am an American citizen. I am a Viet Vet. I worked for DoD, later. I was the Office Operations Supervisor, in Portland, Or., for Census 2000. I am a Hurricane Katrina survivor. I am now writing this to you. I have worked in the belly of the beast, and know it is detestible.

Yes, I have a sign-on, but it is habit, after working with computers, first mainframes, then desktops, and now laptops, long enough that these things are now playtoys.

I would agree. Although its completely irrational any sort of gun ban would play very badly in rank/file dem circles. In my end of the world there are plenty of dems who would spit blood if their weapons were banned. So, if Barry and his DC shills did get to the point where they had the votes or feel they could play the ‘deem’ game I think Things would go very very badly in a big hurry.

Using their contorted logic they would only need 2/3rds of the votes cast, not 2/3rds of the entire Senate.(Not Constitutional but hey, they can make me do business with a company I don’t already do business with)

48
posted on 07/20/2010 11:23:56 AM PDT
by Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.